Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I was thinking about the deadliest conflicts in the history of the Alpha Quadrant and two came immediately to mind - the Dominion War and the Borg Invasion of 2381.

The Dominion War's often referenced as one of the bloodiest conflicts in history, bringing down one of the Quadrant's major powers (the Cardassians) and with catastrophic death tolls for all parties involved. Though no hard numbers of total casualties for the Dominion War were ever given, in "Statistical Probabilities" the genetically engineered think tank estimates 900 billion casualties if the war continues - a huge number, even if just a future projection.

The Borg Invasion of 2381 destroyed 40% of Starfleet's forces and resulted in 63 billion killed, not to mention the devastation to entire planets and destruction of the Borg Collective.

What's crazy to me is that these two events happened within six years of each other! The two (to my understanding) deadliest conflicts within six years of each other. I mean, especially for the UFP, that's just a lot to take.

Has there ever been anything even coming close to these two conflicts in Alpha Quadrant (or, for that matter, galactic) history?

The DS9 Millenium Trilogy's War of the Prophets deserves a mention, even if it was undone at the end. The Grigari came along and basically ended the Dominion War (by ending the Alpha Quadrant Dominion), wiped out the Klingons and Earth, destroyed many other worlds and fleets with an insane variety of tactics (from hiding in the mirror universe to using nanites to Red Matter-like singularity bombs)...

Also the devastating alternate-timeline Second Romulan War alluded to in Watching the Clock (from the unmade animated series Star Trek: Final Frontier), where much of subspace in the Federation was destroyed by Omega detonations rendering warp drive useless.

There was also Diane Duane's Second Romulan War in The Empty Chair, in which almost the entire Rihannsu military was wiped out by the Federation and enourmous Rihannsu civilian/colony craft.

I share it. Let's hope we are smart enough to stay away from such insane behaviour as we have proven we are capable of.

Real world - while I think it borders on wishful thinking, I share your mind-set; I find it the only useful mind-set.

Trek lit universe - . Darkness and destruction are the trendy thing to do.
Daniel already named a few conflicts on par with the dominion war/borg extermination. Chances are the upcoming 'The fall' will add to the bodycount; 'Cold equations', 3rd book already featured huge red-shirt destruction; etc.

But it's more than that - when it comes to Sci.
For example - not so long ago, he was vocal regarding Data remaining dead - in order to keep the ~'integrity of the trek lit line'.
Now, if asked, Sci would almost certainly say bringing back Data was a good idea. And would come up with excuses such as ~it's not really Data; it was a well done resurrection; etc - excuses are easy to conjure; I, you or anyone else can come up with a multitude if we really want to. And Sci REALLY wants to - frankly, I don't understand his compulsion to incessantly play the apologist for the trek lit line.

Ah, here it comes. A discussion about the size of various Trekverse conflicts turns into your personal dislike of me.

For example - not so long ago, he was vocal regarding Data remaining dead - in order to keep the ~'integrity of the trek lit line'.
Now, if asked, Sci would almost certainly say bringing back Data was a good idea.

Nope. I've read The Persistence of Memory, and while I quite liked it, I still disagree with the idea of bringing Data back. I also disagree with the idea of bringing Janeway back, though I haven't yet had the chance to read The Eternal Tide.

I have always maintained that a resurrection can be done well and plausibly yet still be a bad idea simply by virtue of undermining the verisimilitude of the shared universe by making death seem temporary. While I quite enjoyed The Persistence of Memory, I also think it is a perfect example of exactly that.

The DS9 Millenium Trilogy's War of the Prophets deserves a mention, even if it was undone at the end. The Grigari came along and basically ended the Dominion War (by ending the Alpha Quadrant Dominion), wiped out the Klingons and Earth, destroyed many other worlds and fleets with an insane variety of tactics (from hiding in the mirror universe to using nanites to Red Matter-like singularity bombs)...

Also the devastating alternate-timeline Second Romulan War alluded to in Watching the Clock (from the unmade animated series Star Trek: Final Frontier), where much of subspace in the Federation was destroyed by Omega detonations rendering warp drive useless.

There was also Diane Duane's Second Romulan War in The Empty Chair, in which almost the entire Rihannsu military was wiped out by the Federation and enourmous Rihannsu civilian/colony craft.

Hmm, interesting about the Empty Chair. And yeah, the DS9 Millennium trilogy conflict was huge! It seems though that the Dominion War and Borg Invasion of 2381 are the biggest conflicts in the main Pocket Book timeline - and both, in my opinion, among the best Star Trek stories done ever.

More generally, I agree we shouldn't be saturated by epic wars, but I'm glad the ones we have were done well.

I've no problem with lots of epic conflicts as i like those kind of stories but i agree that it becomes repetitive and depressing when they are placed to close together in the trek timeline. The established trek timeline stretches across several centuries so there’s more than enough room to have lots of these kinds of stories without giving the impression the federation is in a constants fight for its existence

I think that, the bigger the Federation became, the bigger its infuence on interstellar affairs, and the bigger Starfleet became, so much more of a threat it appeared to its neighbours, and the bigger the resulting conflict would be.

Say, a lot 22nd Federation, with only a small number of members and not that big of a fleet, would require less of mobilisation of ships from, say, the Klingons, then it would in the late 24th century, where the Federation consists of over a 150 members and a huge fleet.

So, that way, any conflict will appear to be much bigger, if that makes any sense.

I've no problem with lots of epic conflicts as i like those kind of stories but i agree that it becomes repetitive and depressing when they are placed to close together in the trek timeline. The established trek timeline stretches across several centuries so there’s more than enough room to have lots of these kinds of stories without giving the impression the federation is in a constants fight for its existence

Actually, the epic nature of the conflicts depicted in the books is perfectly in line with what was stated on TV.

Remember in Q Who, before Q flung the Enterprise into the Delta Quadrant, Q himself stated that the humanity/The Federation was expanding much faster than expected. They were moving into parts of the galaxy where they had no experience dealing with the sort of lifeforms that they would find out there. He specifically said..."you compare yourselves to the pitiful adversaries you've already encountered, the Klingons, the Romulans...they are NOTHING compared to what's out there." Picard brushed that aside so Q introduced them to the Borg. This of course was before the discovery of the wormhole to the Gamma quadrant or before Voyager and the Equinox managed to make lots of enemies in the Delta Quadrant.

TrekLit has only taken Q's comment to it logical conclusion. The Federation cannot expand forever without encountering some resistance. The late 24th century has shown the Federation expanding its reach even faster by touching parts of the galaxy that do not even border its space. Now in the books, the Federation has the ability to cross the galaxy in a short time. This should bring them into conflict with more species even faster.

__________________Well maybe I'm the faggot America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoiaGreen Day

I've no problem with lots of epic conflicts as i like those kind of stories but i agree that it becomes repetitive and depressing when they are placed to close together in the trek timeline. The established trek timeline stretches across several centuries so there’s more than enough room to have lots of these kinds of stories without giving the impression the federation is in a constants fight for its existence

Actually, the epic nature of the conflicts depicted in the books is perfectly in line with what was stated on TV.

Remember in Q Who, before Q flung the Enterprise into the Delta Quadrant, Q himself stated that the humanity/The Federation was expanding much faster than expected. They were moving into parts of the galaxy where they had no experience dealing with the sort of lifeforms that they would find out there. He specifically said..."you compare yourselves to the pitiful adversaries you've already encountered, the Klingons, the Romulans...they are NOTHING compared to what's out there." Picard brushed that aside so Q introduced them to the Borg. This of course was before the discovery of the wormhole to the Gamma quadrant or before Voyager and the Equinox managed to make lots of enemies in the Delta Quadrant.

TrekLit has only taken Q's comment to it logical conclusion. The Federation cannot expand forever without encountering some resistance. The late 24th century has shown the Federation expanding its reach even faster by touching parts of the galaxy that do not even border its space. Now in the books, the Federation has the ability to cross the galaxy in a short time. This should bring them into conflict with more species even faster.

^ True but Star Trek has always been a more optimistic view of the future and the idea of the federation in constant conflict doesn’t exactly fit with that, there has to be some room to show it in a state of peace and I’ve always taken Q’s comments to mean that they re going to run into life forms unlike anything they have experience with but not that they are all going to be enemies. Besides aren’t most of the conflicts in the 24th lit with re-established enemies rather than new races. (bit new to trek lit so not sure)

For me, the optimism of Trek isn't due to lack of conflict, so much as the way that those conflicts are resolved. In Trek conflicts aren't solved by wiping out an enemy, but by finding a way to come to some kind of an understanding.

__________________
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it is not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett, Equal Rites

For me, the optimism of Trek isn't due to lack of conflict, so much as the way that those conflicts are resolved. In Trek conflicts aren't solved by wiping out an enemy, but by finding a way to come to some kind of an understanding.

For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:

The method of resolving the conflicts changes absolutely nothing to all the death, suffering and destruction endured through the wars.
And the next large scale war/disaster/etc is always around the corner in trek lit these days.

For me, the optimism of Trek isn't due to lack of conflict, so much as the way that those conflicts are resolved. In Trek conflicts aren't solved by wiping out an enemy, but by finding a way to come to some kind of an understanding.

For an optimistic, positive view of the future, this is a pretty shallow one, rather superficial:

Wait.

Waitwaitwait.

Choosing to eschew more pointless war and instead choosing to try and understand your opponents and compromise with them, to understand them... is shallow and superficial?!